Delaware General Assembly Pre-Game Show: Tuesday, March 15, 2011
They’re ba-a-a-ck, and so am I.
The Delaware General Assembly reconvenes this afternoon in Legislative Hall, and they are primed for a run of about a month or so before the Easter break.
Two topics will dominate talk in the Hall during that time–money and redistricting.
I fully expect all four caucuses to discuss both of these topics behind closed doors this week. Some of the Governor’s most draconian proposals were not enthusiastically embraced during the recent Joint Finance Committee hearings, especially the proposal to cut Medicaid recipients’ funding by $94/month. I hope that the Democratic caucuses, at least, ask the following question: If we are to insist that cuts hurting those who have the least to sacrifice be restored, how will we pay for them? I then hope that, as caucuses, they reach the following conclusion: We intend to support, and to press for, higher taxes on Delaware’s wealthiest citizens to preserve the social safety net and to fund essential programs. Not just a gadfly or two, who the powerful are able to marginalize, but the caucuses. Including, but not limited to, JFC co-chairs Dennis P. Williams and Harris B. McDowell, III, both of whom are well aware of the potential pain these unnecessary cuts would cause.
I believe that Gov. Markell would find it politically impossible to ignore a unified call by the Democratic caucuses to bring meaning to the term ‘shared sacrifice’. And, it makes sense both from a political and policy sense. Nothing will deaden the Democratic base more than insisting that the wealthy should be immune from helping out in this terrible economy. Are you paying attention, legislators? Poll after poll nationwide show that people want the well-heeled to pay their fair share. Ignore them at your own risk.
OK, let’s take a look at today. While most of the action will almost certainly take place during party caucuses (expect long ones today), at least one chamber was actually prepared for today’s return to Dover.
That chamber would not be the State Senate. Allow me to quote sum, part and parcel, from the posted Senate Agenda:
The Senate is in recess for the Joint Finance Hearings and is scheduled to reconvene on Tuesday afternoon, the 15th of March.
Stop the presses.
Of course, the lack of an agenda is no impediment to the Senate should Tiny Tony DeLuca decide he wants to do something. His disdain for open government is by now legendary, and will ultimately prove to be part of his undoing.
OTOH, the House has an agenda for today.
Of particular note is HB 19, which would substitute judiciary discretion for the draconian minimum mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Which brings me to…:
‘Bulo’s Law #43: Whenever the General Assembly decides that it knows more about something than the professionals who work at it every day, they will invariably implement ill-considered legislation that ultimately will have to be rescinded.
Such is the case here. These minimum mandatory sentences were the ‘brainchildren’ of Tom Sharp, Wayne Smith and Jim Vaughn. With the help of Jane Brady, who ironically is now a judge, they pushed this package through the General Assembly using intimidation tactics including threats of electoral reprisals. It has been both a policy and fiscal disaster, with tens of millions in state dollars going to prison construction, staffing and services. Money that would have been far better served on schools and roads, for example.
The precursor to HB 19 passed the House last session with bipartisan support. It will come as no shock to anyone that ‘Napoleonic Martinet’ Tony DeLuca singlehandedly refused to put this bill on the senate agenda last year. Rep. George learned her lesson. She has kissed the ring of the godfather, and he is now a sponsor on the bill this year. See how easy it is? Of course, would-be ring-kissers will no longer be able to walk into his office since it’s now a fortress. They will have to make appointments with his ‘Special Assistant’. Assuming she can tear herself away from…whatever she’s doing, perhaps DeLuca will have his knob ring well-polished by the potential puckerers.
Here’s an excellent article on the bill’s impact. Not only would the bill eliminate jail time for users as opposed to dealers, but it would also significantly reduce the ‘piling-on’ effect created by redundant laws:
For example, the legislation gets rid of a separate charge of possession of drugs within a certain distance from a park, school or church, Butler said, and makes it an aggravating factor that could increase the severity of a judge’s sentence.”One of the things we were trying to do was streamline things a little bit,” Butler said.
The bill reflects the work of many in the criminal justice community:
For nearly two years, a task force of drug crime reform activists, prosecutors, police chiefs, corrections officials, drug rehabilitation experts, lawmakers and defense attorneys have met to craft the legislation. A different version of the bill passed the House last year 31-5 before stalling in the Senate during the final month of the legislative session.
Good. It’s about time. I believe that this will be one of the best reforms to emerge from this General Assembly. It took a lot of hard work to put this together, and it now appears that its sole impediment to passage has been eliminated. Well, not eliminated. Brought on board.
I’ll be back tomorrow with our next installment. Also, I’m on the Al Mascitti Show on WDEL 1150-AM Wednesday at 10. Al’s show runs weekdays from 9 am to 12 noon. Support your LOCAL news and opinion station.
Tags: Delaware General Assembly; Sen. DeLuca; Rep. Melanie George; Steve Tanzer; El Somnambulo
New Jersey’s Democratic lawmakers intend to do what you’ve described by passing a millionaires tax which will establish an income-tax surcharge. (The proposal would increase the levy by 2 percent on a measly 18,000 people with a combined income of about $36 billion.)
Christie will veto it, but so what? At least the Democrats will have something to use against him in the next election.
OK, “mandatory minimums are bad”. 3 years is too long a sentence for selling drugs.
What is the correct sentence for selling drugs in front of your house? or at your kid’s bus stop?
a fine?
a stern talking to?
The problem is the “mandatory,” genius. Not all drugs are sold in front of your house, or the kids’ school.
“What is the correct sentence…”
That’s what trials and judges are for dummy.
(Aside to normal people: Why is it that teabagz want to yell about the state taking away their freedoms, but then want to give all this power to the state? it must be because they always think that THEIR freedoms to shoot drunkenly at runaway hogs are special, while black people are the ones that end up in the court system. it must come down to racism, right? )
Geezer, your right, drug dealing takes place in a wide range of locations. Feel free to offer a range of answers:
Location Sentence
Street corner, rough neighborhoood
Street corner, nice neighborhood
Bathroom of a Trolley Square Bar
Beach house in Dewey
“OK, “mandatory minimums are bad”. 3 years is too long a sentence for selling drugs.
What is the correct sentence for selling drugs in front of your house? or at your kid’s bus stop?
a fine?
a stern talking to?”
how bout being dunked in near boiling water for 3-minutes?
Penalties will be at least as harsh, or harsher, for drug dealing.
Those who have been incarcerated for possession will be mostly deferred for treatment.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of an uninformed rant, Avocado. How about actually reading the article before displaying your idiocy.
maybe we are asking the wrong questions…. how about… “is smoking pot in your house worthy of 3 years in prison with murderers and rapists?”
El Blahblah, I am happy to deal in facts, post some.
Who has been incarcerated for simple possesion?
The Manmins are for DEALERS…Are you arguing that the threshold quantities are too low?
What is the correct sentence for selling drugs in front of your house? or at your kid’s bus stop?
Or how about a few months of reading A’s drivel. Talk about making the punishment fit the crime.
“Who has been incarcerated for simple possesion?”
you asking that question shows how uninformed you are.
Avocado wrote:
“Who has been incarcerated for simple possession?”
From the article that Guacamole Head didn’t bother to read:
“The legislation would repeal the felony of maintaining a dwelling or vehicle while in possession of drugs, a frequent charge leveled on people who are found with controlled substances in their car or home. Current law is broad enough to make possession of a single marijuana joint in a home or car a Class F felony, according to a summary of the bill.
Currently, Delaware prosectors also tack on an extra felony charge for possession of drugs within 1,000 feet of a school or 300 feet of a park or church.”
so now it comes out, your are aguing against the Drug Free School Zones. Fine, site the facts and have the arguement out in the open.
don’t try and sell the fantasy that little jimmy honor student got cought smoking his first joint and is now making liscense plates for three years.
from the article:
“The legislation would repeal the felony of maintaining a dwelling or vehicle while in possession of drugs, a frequent charge leveled on people who are found with controlled substances in their car or home. Current law is broad enough to make possession of a single marijuana joint in a home or car a Class F felony, according to a summary of the bill.
[ok, but has anyone actually been charged for a single joint or is this simply the reporter pontificating? Are the people charged under this statute actually dealers with quantities aboove the threshold?]
Currently, Delaware prosectors also tack on an extra felony charge for possession of drugs within 1,000 feet of a school or 300 feet of a park or church.”
OK, you oppose this, why?
(try simple declarative sentances rather than failed attempts at snark) It’s not a hard argument to make.
“don’t try and sell the fantasy that little jimmy honor student got cought smoking his first joint and is now making liscense plates for three years.”
maybe not little jimmy… but little jamal is another story.
Hogwash. The absolute best bill which was nationally peer reviewed was written by Dr. Floyd McDowell. In fact, the bill completely reforms the draconian laws on the books. The National NAACP used Dr. McDowells bill to push for reform in every state. But lets not have a peer reviewed bill go in front of a bunch of local yokels who came up with this one (with prison industrial complex)or pushers of the status quo get in the way of common sense. Markell was never serious about real reform. Copeland his ilk stand in the way of real reform. So let this bunch go ahead “tinker and proclaim” the problem fixed, when of course it will do little to affect the lives of those caught up in the mandatory sentencing guidelines. Just another day in Delaware when those who bring common sense legislation to the forefront are shoved back for the sake of those who will most benefit one way or another.
A: You apparently aren’t aware that mandatory sentences were put in place for precisely the reason you cite.
You’re not going to get an answer to your question because it’s the wrong question. If you want a debate, ask why we criminalize a public health issue. People shouldn’t be imprisoned for selling drugs. They should be imprisoned for violent behavior. No harm, no foul.
If you respond, please try to remember that each person here is an individual. I’m not speaking for anyone but myself.
anon: I know you won’t believe this, because I’ve been telling you this for years and you never believe it, but Dr. Floyd McDowell might as well be pissing up a rainpipe for all the good he does. You will not find a legislature anywhere that will listen to the ideas of people with no skin in the game, no matter how good those ideas are. The best example is probably Dr. James Hansen of NASA, who sounded the alarm on global warming. See any legislation yet?
The only way to get a hearing for Floyd’s bill is for him to convince someone in the legislature to back the bill. Unfortunately, he loses patience quickly when things don’t happen, leading to the general unwillingness of people in power to work with him.
Geezer, sadly, you’re right about Floyd. It’s way too easy for legislators to lump flawed messengers and flawed messages together, even when the messages are powerful and persuasive to those who actually think for themselves.
Having said that, HB 19 is a dramatic improvement over what we have now.
And, Avogadro, before you claim you’re all about the ‘facts’, take time to read the article, which, by your own admission, you haven’t. There is not one scintilla of reportorial pontificating in it. In fact, Charles Butler of the AG’s office is the source talking about the piling-on of charges.
“People shouldn’t be imprisoned for selling drugs. They should be imprisoned for violent behavior. No harm, no foul.
If you respond, please try to remember that each person here is an individual. I’m not speaking for anyone but myself.”
Geezer, on this matter you can speak for me. I agree w/ you 100%.
“People shouldn’t be imprisoned for selling drugs.”
Geezer, thank you for this flash of honesty, it’s not manmins you oppose persay but imprisoning drug dealers. Does this mean you are for legalization or just fines as a punishemnt?
The reason we have manmins is because judges were routinely ignoring sentancing guidelines and returning criminals to the streets with a slap on the wrist.
the responces to my question “what should the sentence be for selling drugs” ranges from:
nothing – reading blog posts – three minutes in boiling water – TEABAGGER! – not smart enough, leave it to the judge to decide.
Are you really this dumb? What part of, “That’s what trials and judges are for dummy.” don’t you understand?
New Jersey’s Democratic lawmakers intend to do what El Somnambulo described by passing a millionaires tax which will establish an income-tax surcharge. (The proposal would increase the levy by 2 percent on a measly 18,000 people with a combined income of about $36 billion.)
Christie will veto it, but so what? At least the Democrats will have something to use against him in the next election.
I just wanted to remind everyone what the topic of the thread was before ti was hijacked by a dumb teabag.
The real answer to your question Avagadro is “it depends”.
But under current sentencing laws, it doesn’t. If you are found to be guilty of …., you are sentenced to the mandatory minimum.
You must have experience dealing with dumb people because you are much better at it than I am.
It’s because I am unencumbered by the thought process.
I am unencumbered by the thought process.
and yet you’re such a thoughtful liberalgeek.
LG,
if you are found guilty of selling drugs, you get sentenced to at least the mamin, and at the judges descretion, based on case specific facts you can be sentenced to much more than the minimum.
IE – if I am arrested selling crack on Market Street, (no gun, first offense) I will get At Least 3 years in prison, more if the judge thinks it’s warranted.
It sounds like “it depends” means “I want a different outcome, but don’t want to be involved in writing the rules (laws)”.
HB 19 will be voted on in the house, each of us can:
call your state rep and encourage her to vote against.
call your state rep and encourage him to vote for.
or
do nothing.
El blah has posted his opinion that the current law is bad and the change is good (and a link to a poorly written New Journal story) but has provided no rational, no evidence, no persuasive argument that we should share his opinion and act on it.
I support manditory minimums, based on a track record of Judges ignoring the intent of the law and under sentencing. But that doesn’t mean I think the legislature got it 100% right on their first try. Is HB 19 an improvement?
Stop misrepresenting my position, Avocado. I clearly stated in my piece that the tens of millions of dollars that went to this harebrained scheme (you sound so much like Tom Sharp of 20 years ago that it’s scary) could and SHOULD have gone to schools, roads, etc.
You characterize a story as ‘poorly-written’, yet you apparently never deigned to read it.
And there is scads of evidence that minimum mandatories for non-violent offenders not only don’t work, but they simply help propagate the criminal class. Much of that information helped go into the crafting of this bill. Counter that with what you brought to the table. Nada.
Seriously, this is the last time I intend to respond to your stupidity in this thread. Faith-based bullshit just ain’t my thing.
And, come to think of it, your spelling and punctuation errors remind me of someone who posts here and who just might or might not be ‘friends’ with a certain Sussex legislator with a record of public drunkenness and spousal abuse.
El Blah, try writing greeting cards, rhetoric is not your forte.
Hey avocado — you are in no position to judge anyone else’s rhetoric, especially since you wouldn’t know it even if it jumped out of your fry machine.
“Geezer … it’s not manmins you oppose persay but imprisoning drug dealers. Does this mean you are for legalization or just fines as a punishemnt?”
I’m opposed to man-mins because they help clog up the prisons, which costs us an enormous amount of money while doing little to nothing to discourage both drug use and drug sales. I’m a libertarian on recreational drugs. They harm users, of course, but as long as those users are adults I figure it’s their body (or their funeral). We clearly can’t move directly to legalization, but I”m all for decriminalization, especially for marijuana. A full response would take longer than I have (and run longer than most people would care to read), but that’s my basic position.
“The reason we have manmins is because judges were routinely ignoring sentancing guidelines and returning criminals to the streets with a slap on the wrist.”
I disagree. First of all, if only use or sales are involved — that is, no violence — I really don’t see the point of the exercise. Again, the problem with the drug trade for civilians isn’t the black market in recreational drugs but the violence that accompanies it. Delaware, under boneheaded, draconian, imcompetent AG Jane Brady classified all drug violations, no matter how benign, as automatically “violent” crime, the better to imprison those convicted. It’s a pointless and expensive enterprise without the slightest evidence of achieving any goal but destroying communities, particularly African-American ones.
Sorry to interrupt the banter, but HB 19 passed the House 39-1.
Carry on.
The one ‘no’? The drunken wifebeater John Atkins. In what passes for his mind, having a joint at home is much more criminal than driving while plastered:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/7712cf7cc0e9227a852568470077336f/3d4a4a4046a2eba285257854007284c8?OpenDocument
We imprison lots and lots of people for simple possession. Perhaps it’s time to try something else for a change, especially since Republicans think “we’re broke.”
First, all these draconian mandatory sentencing came right out of Nelson Rockefeller when he was running for Pres way back when. The Judges in this State hate the mandatory sentencing guidelines and have said so in meetings with them I personally attended. There is no wiggle room for them. The problem is the AG’s office, who continuously go to the Legislature with these pileon charges to get more prison time. Regardless of what you say Dr. McDowell has more on the ball at 85 than all these idiot legislators in Dover combined. They havent done one oz of research, have contacted no experts, have never put together a bill of any substance but rely on others or lobbyists to do it for them. Of course if its a good bill they will take the credit! i.e. Harris McDowell and the single payer bill. Harris never wrote a word of it. And he is talking about bringing it back out (god forbid) so he can put his Harris McDowell name to it, taking all the credit from Dr. Floyd McDowell. (no relation). On the prison reform bill, it was heavily supported by the Catholics, NAACP, Community groups, League of Women Voters, on an on. When Margaret Rose Henry took it to the Senate for a review, the guy (cant remember his name said), sorry we cant do this, “it would change too many laws”. Duh! The moron didnt realize that is what legislators do! So they shut it down. Problem is some of these legislators dont like “common sense citizens” writing bills, thats “their turf”, even though many have a hard time spelling.
Is Johnny the one tea party democrat I keep hearing about on talk radio? Maybe he and st.Bodie’s girl ought to have a slap fight, or tickle fight which ever applies. But none of that nose candy mes amigos nor the Muchuacan
Anon, WTF do you want the legislature to do? If Harris McDowell and Margaret Rose Henry want to introduce the bill, why do you have a bleeping problem with that? Here’s a little detail: LEGISLATORS have to introduce legislation. Floyd McDowell is not a legislator. Your whacked-out screed is likely why even sympathetic legislators want to have nothing to do with it–or Floyd McDowell. I know that Harris has supported this legislation from the git-go. He’s also developed other progressive (and sadly-doomed) insurance bills like ‘pay at the pump auto insurance’.
And that’s one of the problems with Floyd McDowell…he’d rather be the smartest guy in the room, as evidenced by your diss of legislators who would like to sponsor the legislation, than an effective force for progressive legislation.
BTW, regardless of what Nelson Rockefeller did in the ’70’s, and I went to college during Attica and I know, this package of crap was enacted in Delaware in the 1990’s.
UI says “We imprison lots and lots of people for simple possession.”
How many? source/citation?
If that is true, I will join you in lobbying for change.
El Som –
If JK or someone wanted to introduce a bill like the millionaire tax in New Jersey – would they need to have a co-sponsor? IS introducing a bill to shame the body even an option. (Please note: I realize it is impossible to make Republicans feel shame – I meant the Democrats.)
Sure, he could do it. But the difference between Delaware and New Jersey is that if the General Assembly enacted it, Markell would likely either sign it or allow it to become law without his signature.
Legislators, however, are rarely, if ever, shamed into anything. While I’d love to see JK as a sponsor, I’d REALLY love to see McDowell and Williams take the lead on this as they are the JFC co-chairs. Hopefully with a couple a’ dozen co-sponsors. And I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility. Were Kowalko to be the sole sponsor of such a bill, it would be DOA. That’s a shame, but I think that’s what’d happen.
Just one final note to Guacamole Head: It’s not up to US to do your research for you. We’ve actually read, you know, stuff that buttresses the public policy logic behind the bill. The bill passed 39-1 w/o your support. Democrats, R’s, liberals, moderates and conservatives. Only the Sussex sociopath kept it from being unanimous. We don’t NEED your steenkin’ support.
It makes sense just to get a vote on the millionaires tax in order to have a club to beat Republicans with.
Imagine, “My opponent voted FOR cutting teachers and increase class sizes and when he had a chance to make sure all Delawareans are sharing the pain, he voted AGAINST taxing millionaires who are getting a free ride.”
That’s what Rethugs do–hold meaningless votes to gain political advantage. I want some sort of tax on the wealthy enacted as a way to protect our most vulnerable citizens and to equalize the shared sacrifice.
Meaningless this year… enacted next year. Your comment reveals why Republicans continue to win elections in spite of the fact that their policies LITERALLY fuck the country in the eye hole.
They are strategic.
I look at it differently–hold a meaningful vote and pass legislation that the public wants.
Guess what–D’s reap the benefits in 2012 for doing both the right and the popular thing.
Democrats’ resolute refusal to adhere to core Democratic principles is what kills them. Stop all this bipartisan BS and govern like Democrats.
That too.
Avogadro misspells his own name. Worse, he invents legends about judges who are soft on crack. Dumber than Janie Brady.
anon: See, it’s not just me. It pays to remember the words of Sir William Osler: “In science, the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to whom the idea first occurs.” It holds true in politics as well.
El blah, thanks for confirming that the army of the imprisoned for possession is just another libtard myth.
HB 19 passed with only one no vote? Delaware is finally coming to its senses with regards to the “drug war” after it elected drug war warrior Biden to the Senate for decades…
Avogadro should stroll down Lombard Street and ask how well the drug laws are working.
“he’d rather be the smartest guy in the room, as evidenced by your diss of legislators who would like to sponsor the legislation, than an effective force for progressive legislation.”
Sadly, this describes too many people. 😉